A benefit of my consulting work is that it requires me to learn on a regular basis. As I prepared for an upcoming workshop about organizational conflict I was revisiting some books to refresh my memory. While doing this, I re-encountered a wonderful model about the different ways we respond to interpersonal conflict (Rahim). Five different approaches to conflict are illustrated in this Johari window.
Response 1 – Avoid [low concern for self and low concern for others]
Response 2 – Oblige [low concern for self and high concern for others]
Response 3 – Compromise [moderate concern for self and moderate concern for others]
Response 4 – Dominate [high concern for self and low concern for others]
Response 5 – Integrate [high concern for self and high concern for others]
This research also has significant cultural nuances to it. For example, cultures that highly value ‘saving face tend to use obliging or even avoidance styles as a means to accomplish this. Rahim’s model is a useful way to identify responses to conflict because it is so easy to remember. Specifically, I appreciate how it reminds us that conflict avoidance is usually a lose/lose situation. So how about you – what’s your go-to style?
Jeff Suderman is a futurist, consultant, and professor who works in the field of organizational development. He partners with clients to improve culture, leadership, teamwork, organizational alignment, strategy and organizational future-readiness. He resides in Palm Desert, California. Twitter: @jlsuderman Email: jeff@jeffsuderman.com
Source: A. Rahim (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal.
Photo Source: FreeImages.com/LisaKong
2 Comments
Made me smile as i, of course, have personal inclinations. On the other hand, i tried to recall of more complex situations (than cupcake) in the organizational context. And i realized that often it can really depend on your postion (e.g., sales, marketing, R&D etc.) and existing internal bonus system. For instance, we had one specific ingredient that sold well in the market for almost a decade. Naturally, the cycle was starting to go down. As a team we had to come up with a new plan, different strategic item on the goods list. Sales reps were extremely combative as this was the item contributing greatly to their salaries, marketing and R&D department were somewhere in the green block, meanwhile top management were somewhat ‘purple’ – after all there was this team of people employed to do their jobs. Unfortunately, no compromise was reached – the item ‘died’, some were fired..and hopefully, at least few lessons learnt.
Excellent example – thank you Aiste! I think this example occurred in the Baltic States which adds another unique element to your story.